If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

If we could do this for a combination of Hill + while likely having to take back a contract like Fields, I'd do it just to get out of Hill's contract. You could plug just about any point guard in with our starters, and they'd be at least capable.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

I dont think Larry has any interest at all in Lowry..I do however think he would like to do a Copeland for Kaman trade...

The Lakers are gearing up for a huge free agent shopping spree in the offseason. Despite Kaman doing very little in LaLaLand....the last thing that the Lakers want to do is have what we currently are trying to get rid of.....Copeland's $3 mil 2014-2015 salary on their books.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

If we could do this for a combination of Hill + while likely having to take back a contract like Fields, I'd do it just to get out of Hill's contract. You could plug just about any point guard in with our starters, and they'd be at least capable.

Why would u want to take on Landry Fields' contract? he's owed $6+ mil in 2014-2015.

As for taking any PG and replacing him with GH.....thats not entirely true.

Exhibit A - DJ Augustine
Exhibit B - Darren Collison

IMHO....you just can't plug and play any PG in this offense and defense. The offense and defense calls for a particular type of Guard....one that is tall and has length for his position...one that can handle and move the ball around...and one that can be effective "off the ball". Usually, this points to capable Combo-Guards...like GH and JCraw ( who Bird pursued a few seasons back )....not pure PGs who are ball dominant in order to be effective when on the floor.

Maybe Lowry can do that....i honestly havent watched the Raptors play to know whether he's a good fit or not. But let's not pretend that we can just plug N play any PG into this system and expect the same...if not better results.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

Why would u want to take on Landry Fields' contract? he's owed $6+ mil in 2014-2015.

As for taking any PG and replacing him with GH.....thats not entirely true.

Exhibit A - DJ Augustine
Exhibit B - Darren Collison

Well, Collison was pretty damn solid for the Pacers when he was here and this year as a starter for the Clippers has outperformed Hill, statistically, in just about every category. DJ Augustin is not a good basketball player, and yet he looked at least solid playing alongside our starters last season. Point being, Lance, George, West, and Hibbert would make any point guard look solid. So why pay an average one $8mil per year?

And taking on a contract like Fields while also trading away a guy like Copeland actually saves the Pacers money next season to provide them with more than enough to keep Lance and sign a solid point guard in the off season. Fields would also be in his final year next year, meaning he'd also be a tradable asset. Teams aren't simply lining up to take on Hill's contract given his mediocre production/ability, meaning the Pacers would have to take on somebody else in turn.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

Strictly from a basketball standpoint. I like George Hill better defensively than I like Lowry offensively in a bubble. I also like GH with this group better than I like Lowry, much better. Only way Lowry ends up here is if GH gets an injury that ends his season, imo (knock on wood). I think GH is way underated in what he sacrifices in numbers to make the 'team' work here. I'm glad Larry understands fit as much a contract year stats. Think how the Pacers vs Golden State would have looked if Lowry was in GH's place, not pretty.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

As a big fan of George Hill, I have to say I think Lowry is the better player. However, if we factor in chemistry, likely cost in trade value, and the fact that Lowry is going to be an FA, it all seems pretty iffy to me. The whole article is just speculation.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

If we could do this for a combination of Hill + while likely having to take back a contract like Fields, I'd do it just to get out of Hill's contract. You could plug just about any point guard in with our starters, and they'd be at least capable.

This is nonsense. In a league dominated by pick and roll offense and a lot of dangerous point guards, Hill is easily worth his contract. He's not just a good defender, he's a great one. He can defend big point guards like Deron Williams, and can also guard most speedsters, as well (nobody has shown that they can stay in front of Westbrook or Rose). Hibbert can be aggressive defensively because he doesn't have to defend a penetrator very often. If he gets called for a foul 33% of the time with our current defenders, he's unlikely to foul out. If you replace Hill with a replacement level defender, all of a sudden you'll have $25m in salary sitting on the bench because West and Hibbert will be in foul trouble. That makes it hard to stay "big" against some of these teams. He can also guard the 2 at a fairly high level, which is rare.

Also, Hill shoots at a very good rate, which is key for floor spacing in our inside-out offense. In fact, the only thing that Hill doesn't do at an above average rate is attack the rim, which really isn't as important when you've got guys like Lance and Paul George on your team. He's really the perfect fit for this team, and could easily average 17 PPG on another team if he focused less on defense and more on getting his own shot.

I'd much rather have George Hill on my team than Lowry in a contract year, as others have mentioned. In fact, I'd rather have Hill at his salary than Lance at $10m+, due to the Hill's stability and his ability to defend the primary point of attack.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

I'd like Lowry on Indiana and maybe, with Hill's contract gone, and Danny expiring....we could negotiate with Kyle and Lance to keep both and remain under the tax. It would certainly make it easier. Plus, Butler, Ian, will be gone by season's end. People are talking about Landry Fields as filler.

ESPN trade machine says Lowry and Steve Novak, for George Hill and Solomon Hill works. Solomon would be a good young piece for Toronto. Lowry would start for us obviously. Our bench would be...

Scola
Cope
Ian
Novak
CJ

^Good shooters off that bench. No problems with scoring there. Could get us back into a lot of games quickly if we fall behind by double digits.

Another version I did that works too is George Hill and Solomon Hill and Ian Mahinmi for Kyle Lowry and Amir Johnson. Amir Johnson would take care of our backup big man problems. He's better than Ian.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

This is nonsense. In a league dominated by pick and roll offense and a lot of dangerous point guards, Hill is easily worth his contract. He's not just a good defender, he's a great one. He can defend big point guards like Deron Williams, and can also guard most speedsters, as well (nobody has shown that they can stay in front of Westbrook or Rose). Hibbert can be aggressive defensively because he doesn't have to defend a penetrator very often. If he gets called for a foul 33% of the time with our current defenders, he's unlikely to foul out. If you replace Hill with a replacement level defender, all of a sudden you'll have $25m in salary sitting on the bench because West and Hibbert will be in foul trouble. That makes it hard to stay "big" against some of these teams. He can also guard the 2 at a fairly high level, which is rare.

Also, Hill shoots at a very good rate, which is key for floor spacing in our inside-out offense. In fact, the only thing that Hill doesn't do at an above average rate is attack the rim, which really isn't as important when you've got guys like Lance and Paul George on your team. He's really the perfect fit for this team, and could easily average 17 PPG on another team if he focused less on defense and more on getting his own shot.

I'd much rather have George Hill on my team than Lowry in a contract year, as others have mentioned. In fact, I'd rather have Hill at his salary than Lance at $10m+, due to the Hill's stability and his ability to defend the primary point of attack.

Lowry has the capability to go off in games though. That's the thing. He would make opposing points and 2's in some cases have to work to guard him. Hill has a passive attitude most of the time, Lowry doesn't. He will light you up if you let him. One thing I don't like about Hill the most is his passive attitude. I remember the Portland game, we got a steal and had a chance to go up 1, being behind by two points. Hill had an open 3. He passed it up and tossed the ball to PG who was right beside him to his right. PG took the shot and missed. I want a PG who isn't afraid to take that open shot.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

If we could do this for a combination of Hill + while likely having to take back a contract like Fields, I'd do it just to get out of Hill's contract. You could plug just about any point guard in with our starters, and they'd be at least capable.

Just for suggesting taking on the absurd Landry Fields comment, you are never allowed to beleaguer the front office for the George Hill contract ever again.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

Well, Collison was pretty damn solid for the Pacers when he was here and this year as a starter for the Clippers has outperformed Hill, statistically, in just about every category.

Did you watch the Clippers game when Hill shut Darren down. Look I get the dollars and cents argument. But Darren did not play well in this system. How many more times does Roy and West have to say that they are a better defensive team when the point guard can fight through the pick. Darren and DJ can't. There is a reason why they cost 6 million less. They might play the passing lanes and get you 4 points on fast breaks. But then they get torched and break down their teammates assignments and cost the team 20+ points.

Create an ignore list. I know it may seem unneighborly. But you're here to talk about the Pacers, not argue with someone who's just looking for an argument. Most of the regular users on here make use (at least occasionally) of the "Ignore" feature. Just go to "Settings" -> "Edit Ignore List" and add the names.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

Did you watch the Clippers game when Hill shut Darren down. Look I get the dollars and cents argument. But Darren did not play well in this system. How many more times does Roy and West have to say that they are a better defensive team when the point guard can fight through the pick. Darren and DJ can't. There is a reason why they cost 6 million less. They might play the passing lanes and get you 4 points on fast breaks. But then they get torched and break down their teammates assignments and cost the team 20+ points.

Yet against Orlando in our playoff series while Hill was getting abused by Nelson, Collison had to come in and defended Nelson full court. Then against Miami, Collison was our best player and unlike Hill, was actually capable of defending Chalmers and Cole. Hill will have a good defensive outing, no doubt. But then he'll follow it up by giving up 25+ pts to his man the next game while being limited offensively to a spot up shooter. Yes, Hill outplayed Collison that game. But just because Paul George outplays LeBron in a game, doesn't make him better or equal to him. The Pacers would be in the exact same position they are currently in with Collison as their point guard. Cry foul all you want but I said the exact same garbage with Granger years ago, and guess what, we were actually BETTER without him. Very few guys in this league are irreplaceable.

Re: ESPN Insider: Do Pacers have best shot at Lowry?

Sure. But stats aren't a good way to evaluate our starters; each player has fewer points than they'd have other places because there are so many scorers to go around.

You think Roy can't score more? West?

You are exactly right, and I hate using stats as an argument. I used them strictly as a means to illustrate that Collison isn't some bum when he's been allowed to play. He actually shoots at high %s, plays solid defense, defends the full length of the court, and is a willing passer.